[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37528-37532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18597]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-570-815]


Sulfanilic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid 
from the People's Republic of China. The review covers exports of this 
merchandise to the United States for the period August 1, 1996 through 
July 31, 1997, and thirteen firms: China National Chemical Import and 
Export Corporation, Hebei Branch (Sinochem Hebei); China National 
Chemical Construction Corporation, Beijing Branch; China National 
Chemical Construction Corporation, Qingdao Branch; Sinochem Qingdao; 
Sinochem Shandong; Baoding No. 3 Chemical Factory; Jinxing Chemical 
Factory; Zhenxing Chemical Factory; Mancheng Xinyu Chemical Factory, 
Shijiazhuang; Mancheng Zinyu Chemical Factory, Bejing; Hainan Garden 
Trading Company; Yude Chemical Company and Shunping Lile. The 
preliminary results of this review indicate that there were dumping 
margins for the two responding parties: Yude Chemical Company (Yude) 
and Zhenxing Chemical Factory (Zhenxing), and for the ``PRC 
enterprise.''
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

[[Page 37529]]

Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary 
of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Stevens, Nithya Nagarajan, or Doug Campau Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all ctitations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1997 
(62 FR 27296).

Background

    On August 4, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 41925) a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' for the August 1, 1996 
through July 31, 1997, period of review (POR) of the antidumping duty 
order on Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China, 57 FR 
37524 (1992). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, Zhenxing Chemical 
Industry Co. (Zhenxing), PHT International and the petitioners, Nation 
Ford Chemical Company, requested a review for the aforementioned 
period. On September 25, 1997, the Department published a notice of 
``Initiation of Antidumping Review.'' 62 FR 50292. The Department is 
now conducting a review pursuant to section 751(a) of the Act. On 
October 14, 1997, Yude Chemical Industry Company (Yude) reported that 
it had made no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are all grades of sulfanilic acid, 
which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or 
purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.
    Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the 
direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is 
used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food 
colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal 
differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of 
residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the 
sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.
    Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 
2921.42.24 of the Hamonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), contains 96 percent 
minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent 
maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also 
classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.24 of the HTS, contains 98 
percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 
percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.
    Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS 
subheading 2921.42.79, is a powder, granular or crystalline material 
which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 
percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid 
content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on 
the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.
    Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.
    This review covers thirteen producers-exporters of Chinese 
sulfanilic acid. The review period is August 1, 1996 through July 31, 
1997.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the Respondent using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification 
results are outlined in verification reports in the official file for 
this case (public versions of these reports are on file in room B-099 
of the Department's main building).

Separate Rates

    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity in a nonmarket economy (NME) country under the test established 
in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(Sparklers), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this policy, 
exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific 
margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control, 
both in the law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports of the subject merchandise. Evidence supporting, though not 
requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control includes: 
(1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is based 
on four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or subject 
to the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits and financing of losses; (3) 
whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter has the 
authority to sign contracts and other agreements.
    Yude and Zhenxing were the only companies to respond to the 
Department's request for information. We have found that the evidence 
on the record demonstrates an absence of government control, both in 
law and in fact, with respect to their exports according to the 
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide for this period of 
review, and have assigned to these companies a single separate rate. 
(See ``Collapsing'' section, below). For further discussion of the 
Department's preliminary determination that these two companies are 
entitled to a separate rate, see Decision Memorandum to Joe Spetrini, 
Assistant Deputy Secretary, DAS III, dated July 6, 1998, and titled 
``Separate rates in the 1996/1997 administrative review of sulfanilic 
acid from the People's Republic of China.'' This memorandum is on file 
in the Central Record Unit (room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building).

Collapsing

    We have determined, after examining the relevant criteria, that 
Yude and Zhenxing, are affiliated parties within the meaning of section 
771(33)(F) of the Act. We have further determined that these affiliated 
producers should be treated as a single entity (i.e., ``collapsed'') 
for purposes of assigning an antidumping margin in this review. Section 
351.401(f) of the Department's antidumping regulations provides that 
the Department ``will treat two or more affiliated producers as a 
single entity where those producers have production

[[Page 37530]]

facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities and the Secretary concludes that there is a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production.'' 62 
FR at 27410. In identifying the potential for manipulation of price or 
production, section 351.401(f)(2) provides that the Department may 
consider the following factors: level of common ownership; whether 
managerial employees or board members of one of the affiliated 
producers sit on the board of directors of the other affiliated person; 
and whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of 
facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the 
affiliated parties. A full discussion of our conclusions, requiring 
reference to proprietary information, is contained in a Department 
memorandum in the official file for this case (a public version of this 
memorandum is on file in room B-099 of the Department's main building). 
Generally, however, we have found that: Yude and Zhenxing are 
``affiliated'' parties, substantial retooling would not be necessary to 
restructure manufacturing priorities and there is potential for 
manipulating price and production between the two producers. As a 
result we are collapsing Yude and Zhenxing for purposes of conducting 
the 1996/1997 administrative review.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    All firms that have not demonstrated that they qualify for a 
separate rate are deemed to be part of a single enterprise under the 
common control of the government (the ``PRC enterprise''). Therefore, 
all such entities receive a single margin, the ``PRC rate.'' We 
preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act 
that resort to the facts otherwise available is appropriate in arriving 
at the PRC rate because companies deemed to be part of the PRC 
enterprise for which a review was requested have not responded to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire.
    Where the Department must resort to the facts otherwise available 
because a respondent fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of 
the Act authorizes the Department to use an inference adverse to the 
interests of that respondent in choosing from the facts available. 
Section 776(b) also authorizes the Department to use, as adverse facts 
available, information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the URAA clarifies that information from the petition and 
prior segments of the proceeding is ``secondary information.'' See 
H.Doc. 3216, 103rd Cong. 2d Sess. 870 (1996). If the Department relies 
on secondary information as facts available, section 776(c) provides 
that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate such 
information using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
SAA further provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. However, where corroboration is not 
practicable, the Department may use uncorroborated information.
    In the present case the Department has based the margin on 
information in the petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 
South Africa, 61 FR 24272 (May 14, 1996). In accordance with section 
776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the data contained in the petition, 
as adjusted for initiation purposes, to the extent possible. The 
petition data on major material inputs are consistent with Indian 
import statistics, and also with price quotations obtained by the U.S. 
Embassies in Pakistan and India. Both of these corroborating sources 
were placed on the record during the investigation and have been added 
to the record of this review. In addition, we note that the petition 
used World Bank wage rates which we have repeatedly found to be a 
probative source of data. Based on our ability to corroborate other 
elements of the petition calculation, we preliminarily find that the 
information contained in the petition has probative value. However, we 
will continue to evaluate this information on the basis of more current 
data.
    Accordingly, we have relied upon the information contained in the 
petition. We have assigned to all exporters other than Yude and 
Zhenxing a margin of 85.20 percent, the margin in the petition, as 
adjusted by the Department for initiation purposes.
    As a result of the home market verification of Zhenxing, we have 
relied on facts available in determining the quantities of the factor 
inputs for coal, electricity, and labor. The number of kilowatt hours 
of electricity recorded in company records did not reconcile to the 
actual factory electric bills. Therefore, as facts available, we have 
used the kilowatt hours reported on the actual electric bills. Because 
the bill for August 1996 was missing, as facts available we have 
substituted the highest monthly amount recorded on the available 
electric bills. Because we were unable to reconcile the coal factor 
value to company usage and inventory records, as facts available, we 
have calculated the coal usage factor using the coal amounts in the raw 
materials usage ledger increased by the amount of purchased coal which 
could not be reconciled to the raw materials usage ledger or inventory 
records. Finally, the reported labor hours did not reconcile to the 
daily factory attendance sheets. Therefore, as facts available, we have 
used the number of labor hours reported on the daily attendance sheets.
    At the U.S. sales verification, we found that two sales of 
Zhenxing's sodium sulfanilate, which falls within the scope of subject 
merchandise, were sold through a trading company. On May 1, 1998, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the trading company 
involved and to P.H.T. and Zhenxing. The Department received a response 
from P.H.T. and Zhenxing on May 14, 1998. In this response, P.H.T. and 
Zhenxing stated that the subject merchandise was never sold to the 
trading company, and that the trading company acted only as a 
facilitator for the export of the goods. In addition, as a part of this 
response, P.H.T. and Zhenxing stated that they are not affiliated with 
this trading company. As a part of the May 14, 1998 submission, the 
trading company provided a letter describing the services performed by 
the trading company, on behalf of Zhenxing. In order to account for 
costs Zhenxing incurred in connection with these sales, we have 
deducted from Zhenxing's U.S. price, as facts available, an additional 
expense for brokerage and handling.

United States Price

    For sales made by P.H.T. for Zhenxing, we calculated constructed 
export price based on FOB prices to unrelated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs 
duties, U.S. transportation, credit, warehousing, repacking in the 
United States, indirect selling expenses and constructed export price 
profit, as appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.

Normal Value

    For companies located in NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the 
Act provides that the Department shall

[[Page 37531]]

determine NV using a factors of production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) the available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act.
    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i), and determination that a foreign country is an NME 
country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering 
authority. None of the parties to the proceeding. has contested such 
treatment in this review. Accordingly, we treated the PRC as an NME 
country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the 
factors of production as set forth in section 773(c)(3) of the Act in a 
comparable market economy country which is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we 
determine that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita 
gross national product (GNP), the growth rate in per capita GNP, and 
the national distribution of labor, and that India is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. For further discussion of the 
Department's selection of India as the primary surrogate country, see 
Memorandum from Jeff May, Director, Office of Policy, to Steve Presing, 
dated April 22, 1998, ``Sulfanilic Acid from the PRC: Nonmarket Economy 
Status and Surrogate Country Selection,'' and File Memorandum, dated 
May 8, 1998, ``India as a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise in the 1996/1997 administrative review of sulfanilic acid 
from the People's Republic of China,'' which are on file in the Central 
Records Unit (room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building).
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of production 
as follows, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act:
    To value aniline used in the production of sulfanilic acid, we used 
the rupee per kilogram value of imports into India during April 1996-
December 1996, obtained from the December 1996, Monthly Statistics of 
the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II-Imports (Indian Import 
Statistics.) Using the Indian rupee wholesale price indices (WPI) 
obtained from the International Financial Statistics, published by the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF), we adjusted this value to reflect 
inflation in India through the period of review. We made adjustments to 
include costs incurred for freight between the Chinese aniline 
suppliers and Zhenxing's factory using the minimum of (1) the distance 
from the factory to the supplier or (2) the distance from the factory 
to the port. The surrogate freight rates were based on truck freight 
rates from The Times of India April 20, 1994, and rail freight rates 
from the December 22, 1989 embassy cable for the Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Shop Towels of Cotton from the 
People's Republic of China (56 FR 4040, February 1, 1991) and used in 
Lock Washers. These rates were inflated to be concurrent with the 
period of review and have been placed on the record of this review.
    To value sulfuric acid used in the production of sulfanilic acid, 
we used the rupee per kilogram value for sales in India during the 
period of review as reported in Chemical Weekly. We have adjusted this 
value to exclude the Central Excise Tariff of India and the Bombay 
Sales Tax. We made additional adjustments to include costs incurred for 
freight between the Chinese sulfuric acid supplier and Zhenxing's 
factory in the PRC.
    Consistent with our final determination in the 1995/96 
administrative review, we have used the public price quotes, in this 
case those submitted by Zhenxing on December 17, 1997, which are 
specific to the type and grade of activated carbon reported in the 
Chinese sulfanilic acid producer's factors of production. We made 
adjustments to include cost incurred for inland freight between the 
Chinese activated carbon supplier and Zhenxing's factory in the PRC.
    The Department's regulations (19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)) state that 
``[f]or labor, the Secretary will use regression-based wage rates 
reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national 
income in market economy countries. The Secretary will calculate the 
wage rate to be applied in nonmarket economy proceedings each year. The 
calculation will be based on current data, and will be made available 
to the public.'' To value the factor inputs for labor, we used the wage 
rates calculated for the PRC in the Department's ``Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries'' as revised on June 2, 1997.
    For factory overhead, we used information reported in the April 
1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. From this information, we were 
able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of total cost of 
manufacture.
    For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we used 
information obtained from the April 1995 Reserve Bank of India 
Bulletin. We calculated an SG&A rate by dividing SG&A expenses by the 
cost of manufacture.
    To calculate a profit rate, we used information obtained from the 
April 1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. We calculated a profit rate 
by dividing the before-tax profit by the sum of those components 
pertaining to the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A.
    To value the inner and outer bags used as packing materials, we 
used import statistics for India obtained from Indian Import 
Statistics. Using the Indian rupee WPI data obtained from International 
Financial Statistics, we adjusted these values to reflect inflation 
through the period of review. We adjusted these values to include 
freight costs incurred between the Chinese plastic bag suppliers and 
Zhenxing's factory in the PRC.
    To value coal, we used the price of steam coal of industry reported 
in Energy, Prices, and Taxes, Second Quarter 1997 published by the 
International Energy Agency.
    To value electricity, we used the price of electricity reported in 
Energy, Prices, and Taxes, Second Quarter 1997 published by the 
International Energy Agency.
    To value truck freight, we used the rate reported in The Times of 
India, April 20, 1994. We adjusted the truck freight rates to reflect 
inflation through the period of review using WPI data published by the 
IMF.
    To value rail freight, we used the price reported in a December 
1989 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India submitted for the Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Shop Towels of 
Cotton from the People's Republic of China (56 FR 4040, February 1, 
1991) and added to the record of this review. We adjusted the rail 
freight rates to reflect inflation through the period of review using 
WPI data published by the IMF.
    To value brokerage and handling, we used the brokerage and handling 
rate used in the Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (1994). See April 1997 
Memorandum to All Reviewers from Richard W. Moreland, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary ``Index of Factor Values for Use in Antidumping 
Duty Investigations Involving Products from the People's Republic of 
China.'' We adjusted the value for brokerage and handling to reflect 
inflation through the POR using WPI data published by the IMF.
    To value marine insurance, we used information from a publicly 
summarized version of a questionnaire

[[Page 37532]]

response in Investigation of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sulphur Vat 
Dyes from India (62 FR 42758). See April 1997 Memorandum to All 
Reviewers from Richard W. Moreland, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 
``Index of Factor Values for Use in Antidumping Duty Investigations 
Involving Products from the People's Republic of China.'' We adjusted 
the value for marine insurance to reflect inflation through the POR 
using the Indian rupee WPI data published by the IMF.
    To value ocean freight, we used a value for ocean freight provided 
by the Federal Maritime Commission used in the Final Determination of 
the Antidumping Administrative Review of Sebacic Acid from the PRC, 62 
FR 65674 (1974). We adjusted the value for ocean freight to reflect 
inflation through the POR using WPI data published by the IMF.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine the dumping margin for Yude and Zhenxing 
for the period August 1, 1996-July 31, 1997 to be 0.89 percent. The 
rate for all other firms which have not demonstrated that they are 
entitled to a separate rate is 85.20 percent. This rate will be applied 
to all firms other than Yude and Zhenxing, including all firms which 
did not respond to our questionnaire requests: China National Chemical 
Import and Export Corporation, Hebei Branch (Sinochem Hebei); China 
National Chemical Construction Corporation, Beijing Branch; China 
National Chemical Construction Corporation, Qingdao Branch; Sinchem 
Qingdao; Sinochem Shandong; Baoding No. 3 Chemical Factory; Jinxing 
Chemical Factory; Mancheng Zinyu Chemical Factory, Shijiazhuang; 
Mancheng Xinyu Chemical Factory, Bejing; Hainan Garden Trading Company; 
and Shunping Lile.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a brief summary of 
the arguments. The Department will publish a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in 
any written comments or at a hearing, not later than 120 days after the 
date of publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between the United States prices and NV may vary from the 
percentage stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective with 
respect to all shipments of sulfanilic acid from the PRC entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for reviewed companies listed below will be the rates for 
those firms established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
companies previously found to be entitled to a separate rate and for 
which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
established in the most recent review of that company; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will 
be the China-wide rate of 85.20 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate 
for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin    
             Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 percentage  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yude Chemical Industry, Co./Zhenxing Chemical Industry,                 
 Co.....................................................            0.89
PRC Rate................................................           85.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 351.402 of the Department's regulations to 
file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1674(a)(1)) and section 351.213 
of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: July 6, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18597 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M